Gardner makes following statement:
"Is John Clark therefore reasonable or unreasonable? Certainly when he speaks as a Mesoamericanist to other Mesoamericanists, he is not only reasonable but respected.
Does he somehow become unreasonable when he suggests that he believes that archaeology supports the Book of Mormon?
Surely reasonableness is not defined by agreeing with you?"
We see this approach often used by apologists and I like to refer to it as the "coat-tail" advancement of credibility. They are respected in one non-mormon field of study so they should be respected in the Mormon related arguments.
My question to Gardner would be, as it relates to Clark: "Has Clark ever made his arguments suggesting a Book of Mormon history in mesoamerica to his non-lds peer group?
Surely if, as Gardner seems to propose, Clark does not suddenly become "unreasonable" in his Book of Mormon historicity arguments and is the respected mesoamerican archaeologist claimed, drawing an audience of his peers or any secular academic organization would not be problematic.
So, Mr Gardner, has Clark made such a presentation? If so, did his peer group find him reasonable? If he has not drawn the attention of his academic peer group on his Book of Mormon historicty arguments/scholarship, why not?
Would love to hear your thoughts,